Samuel and I read the book Sister Wives together, written by the wives of Kody Brown from the tv show. It's a good thing I was already accepting of PM, because reading that book made it seem awful. When I think back, I think it was just that it was really clear that Kody was not a good leader and seemed pretty insensitive at times. I've never seen the tv show.
Just wondering, and this is a question to
every woman: if you had a chance back when you were single to watch an hypothetical television show that would fully demonstrate the extent of your potential mate's strengths and weaknesses as a leader -- you know, like a dream in which you could see the future between the two of you -- how many of you would approve enough of his leadership skills to go ahead and marry him in a
non-poly marriage?
My point is that I think we hear too much criticism of men in marriages -- and then feel justified in amplifying that for men in plural marriages. It's far too acceptable from our judgmental perches to provide negative commentary about how a man is running his home, whereas it's almost verboten to assign any blame to the women therein. Again, this isn't personally directed at you, Sarah, but it was the following phrase that got me thinking:
It's a good thing I was already accepting of PM, because reading that book made it seem awful.
When a woman makes an assertion like that, what exactly does it imply? To whatever degree one was or wasn't accepting of plural marriage, and even based on however one even
defines 'acceptance' (i.e., does one
accept that polygyny is biblically permissible but simultaneously wouldn't stand for it occurring with one's own husband), what is inherent in a phrase like,
?
Isn't that a phrase that almost begs an "or else?"
The question I'm throwing out there is: exactly what is a woman implying when she says that
it's a good thing that xyz didn't happen, because . . . ? Maybe it's just me, but it comes across like a veiled threat or an indication that it wouldn't take much for one's 'acceptance' to evaporate.
Once again,
@FollowingHim2, this isn't directed to you. I'm just using your post as a foil for something I
often wonder, even though it couldn't apply to you in particular; you're the head of our Women's Ministry and
frequently advise women in these public threads to discover the bright side of polygyny, but if even
you use phrases like that, I'm thinking it's probably worthwhile for all of us to examine how the manner in which we speak may be contributing to the self-fulfilling nature of condemning polygyny -- and this is important, because polygyny is a perfectly legitimate family-structure option, but it already has to swim upstream against the cultural current and doesn't need the added obstacle of having us undermine it if we're actually sincere supporters.
Even the unfulfillable expectation that all plural husbands be clones of Christ before they receive our approval is an impediment to all plural marriages.
whenwebecamethree.wixsite.com
. 
